Tom Coburn comes off looking a lot like Congressman William Huston Natcher, the closest thing to a villain in the book. Natcher held up Metro funding for years because DC refused to build freeways like the Three Sisters Bridge (which would have generally conencted the Whitehurst to the Spout Run Parkway).

Schrag's answer was less satisfying when an anti-Purple Line caller (starting at 18:58) claimed that the line would "exacerbate class differences" and "wipe out small communities." Schrag claimed that's unavoidable in a "capitalist system", but missed a chance to discuss (perhaps because this is outside his field) how public investment in roads has created much greater class differences by causing disinvestment in cities or forcing working-class people to live far from their jobs. Maybe Kojo can get Christopher Leinberger on the show next; in the meantime, I encourage everyone to read The Option of Urbanism.

David Alpert is the founder of Greater Greater Washington. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He now lives with his wife and daughter in Dupont Circle.

I'm downright offended when people make outlandish claims like the Purple Line will exacerbate class differences. Connecting communities together does just the opposite of that. I worry that what may be causing some of anti-Purple Line sentiment is the idea of hard working immigrants who talk funny being afforded the opportunity to venture out of their sequestered low income rental prisons and make a better living, bringing some of that economic viability back to Langley Park with them. Shame on that caller.

I just had a chance to listen to the segment. I, too, and a little disappointed with Schrag's response to that NIMBY question about class differences. Not that he was wrong - but simply that the implication he left open was that this is solely a byproduct of transit investment.

You know, the Whitehurst Freeway creates a beautiful space underneath it., even though the structure itself is ugly. Rather than lose that, the space could be reused and beautified. Reduce the number of lanes to one each way and make it a BRT lane on one side to connect to Macarthur Boulevard via Canal and K Street. On the other side could be a planted bike and pedestrian route. Cut open the middle in an architecturally interesting way to let in more light and then redesign the structure superficially and it could become a real asset.

It could also just be a new park, with ramps and elevators to connect to the surroundings, with everything above except the bus lanes. Precedents for this already exist. Promenade Plantée and the High Line are great for their communities. The spaces underneath a well-designed viaduct, such as the Riverside Drive viaduct over 12th Avenue in New York can really create cool places.

There's currently a big push on from the Ward 2 Councilmember, Jack Evans, to take down the Whitehurst and make a grand boulevard out of the underlying K/Water Street that would connect up to Canal Road. It's created lots of controversy from commuters who use it as a link into downtown. Evans though says that the boulevard could handle the increased traffic. From San Francisco's experience with Octavia Blvd., it sounds like he is on target.

Driving the Whitehurst affords one of the nicest views of the river, so in that sense the structure will be missed. However, there's no doubt that it does separate Georgetown from its waterfront and for that reason alone should be removed.

The DC government just spent $500,000 on a study to see if it was feasible to remove the Whitehurst. They could not come up with a viable alternative.

The Whitehurst is a critical roadway that keeps more than 42,000 vehicles per day off of Georgetown's crowded streets. The congestion at the stoplights at either end of the Freeway occurs only at rush hour, but the vast majority of motorists use the Whitehurst at other times of the day.

Jack Evans initiated the study and likes to say that removing the Whitehurst is just a matter of lowering the roadway to ground level. It is not.

Traffic patterns would be altered so that vehicles coming across Key Bridge into DC would be forced onto M Street -- unless an unsightly and lengthy ramp is built. (http://savethewhitehurst.org/ramp.html) These vehicles currently have the option of bypassing Georgetown by taking a ramp directly from Key Bridge onto the Whitehurst.

A critical connection to the E Street Expressway would also be lost, and the vehicles that use this elevated ramp would end up on the streets of Foggy Bottom.

Even with widening, the road below the Whitehurst would be inadequate to handle the vehicles that use the Freeway along with the heavy traffic it now carries, especially on weekends.

It may seem that removing the Whitehurst would improve the appearance of the Georgetown waterfront, but the price we would pay in added traffic congestion makes removal impractical.

Add a Comment

Name: (will be displayed on the comments page)

Email: (must be your real address, but will be kept private)

URL: (optional, will be displayed)

Your comment:

By submitting a comment, you agree to abide by our comment policy. Notify me of followup comments via email. (You can also subscribe without commenting.) Save my name and email address on this computer so I don't have to enter it next time, and so I don't have to answer the anti-spam map challenge question in the future.